Your Pie, Not My Pie

Are you and Obama really a match?

Senator Obama's Four Tax Increases for People Earning Under $250k

By Ned Barnett
I confess. Senator Obama's two tax promises: to limit tax increases to only those making over $250,000 a year, and to not raise taxes on 95% of "working Americans," intrigued me. As a hard-working small business owner, over the past ten years I've earned from $50,000 to $100,000 per year. If Senator Obama is shooting straight with us, under his presidency I could look forward to paying no additional Federal taxes -- I might even get a break -- and as I struggle to support a family and pay for two boys in college, a reliable tax freeze is nearly as welcome as further tax cuts.

However, Senator Obama's dual claims seemed implausible, especially when it came to my Federal income taxes. Those implausible promises made me look at what I'd been paying before President Bush's 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, as well as what I paid after those tax cuts became law. I chose the 2000 tax tables as my baseline -- they reflect the tax rates that Senator Obama will restore by letting the "Bush Tax Cuts" lapse. I wanted to see what that meant from my tax bill.

I've worked as the state level media and strategy director on three Presidential election campaigns -- I know how "promises" work -- so I analyzed Senator Obama's promises by looking for loopholes.

The first loophole was easy to find: Senator Obama doesn't "count" allowing the Bush tax cuts to lapse as a tax increase. Unless the cuts are re-enacted, rates will automatically return to the 2000 level. Senator Obama claims that letting a tax cut lapse -- allowing the rates to return to a higher levels -- is not actually a "tax increase." It's just the lapsing of a tax cut.

See the difference?

Neither do I.

When those cuts lapse, my taxes are going up -- a lot -- but by parsing words, Senator Obama justifies his claim that he won't actively raise taxes on 95 percent of working Americans, even while he's passively allowing tax rates to go up for 100% of Americans who actually pay Federal income taxes.

Making this personal, my Federal Income Tax will increase by $3,824 when those tax cuts lapse. That not-insignificant sum would cover a couple of house payments or help my two boys through another month or two of college.

No matter what Senator Obama calls it, requiring us to pay more taxes amounts to a tax increase. This got me wondering what other Americans will have to pay when the tax cuts lapse.

For a married family, filing jointly and earning $75,000 a year, this increase will be $3,074. For those making just $50,000, this increase will be $1,512. Despite Senator Obama's claim, even struggling American families making just $25,000 a year will see a tax increase -- they'll pay $715 more in 2010 than they did in 2007. Across the board, when the tax cuts lapse, working Americans will see significant increases in their taxes, even if their household income is as low as $25,000. See the tables at the end of this article.

Check this for yourself. Go to http://www.irs.gov/formspubs/ and pull up the 1040 instructions for 2000 and 2007 and go to the tax tables. Based on your 2007 income, check your taxes rates for 2000 and 2007, and apply them to your taxable income for 2007. In 2000 -- Senator Obama's benchmark year -- you would have paid significantly more taxes for the income you earned in 2007. The Bush Tax Cuts, which Senator Obama has said he will allow to lapse, saved you money, and without those cuts, your taxes will go back up to the 2000 level. Senator Obama doesn't call it a "tax increase," but your taxes under "President" Obama will increase -- significantly.

Senator Obama is willfully deceiving you and me when he says that no one making under $250,000 will see an increase in their taxes. If I were keeping score, I'd call that Tax Lie #1.

The next loophole involves the payroll tax that you pay to support the Social Security system. Currently, there is an inflation-adjusted cap, and according to the non-profit Tax Foundation, in 2006 -- the most recent year for which tax data is available -- only the first $94,700 of an unmarried individual's earnings were subject to the 12.4 percent payroll tax. However, Senator Obama has proposed lifting that cap, adding an additional 12.4 percent tax on every dollar earned above that cap -- and in spite of his promise, impacting all those who earn between $94,700 and $249,999.

By doing this, he plans to raise an additional $1 trillion dollars (another $662.50 out of my pocket -- and how much out of yours?) to help fund Social Security. Half of this tax would be paid by employees and half by employers -- but employers will either cut the payroll or pass along this tax to their customers through higher prices. Either way, some individual will pay the price for the employer's share of the tax increase.

However, when challenged to explain how he could eliminate the cap AND not raise taxes on Americans earning under $250,000, Senator Obama suggested on his website that he "might" create a "donut" -- an exemption from this payroll tax for wages between $94,700 and $250,000. But that donut would mean he couldn't raise anywhere near that $1 trillion dollars for Social Security. When this was pointed out, Senator Obama's "donut plan" was quietly removed from his website.

This "explanation" sounds like another one of those loopholes. If I were keeping score, I'd call this Tax Lie #2.

(updated) Senator Obama has also said that he will raise capital gains taxes from 15 percent to 20 percent. He says he's aiming at "fat cats" who make above $250,000. However, while only 1 percent of Americans make a quarter-million dollars, roughly 50 percent of all Americans own stock – and while investments that are through IRAs, 401Ks and in pension plans are not subject to capital gains, those stocks in personal portfolios are subject to capital gains, no matter what the owner’s income is. However, according to the US Congress’s Joint Economic Committee Study, “Recent data released by the Federal Reserve shows that nearly half of all U.S. households are stockholders. In the last decade alone, the number of stockholders has jumped by over fifty percent.” This is clear – a significant number of all Americans who earn well under $250,000 a year will feel this rise in their capital gains taxes.
Under "President" Obama, if you sell off stock and earn a $100,000 gain -- perhaps to help put your children through college -- instead of paying $15,000 in capital gains taxes today, you'll pay $20,000 under Obama's plan. That's a full one-third more, and it applies no matter how much you earn.

No question -- for about 50 percent of all Americans, this is Tax Lie #3.

Finally, Senator Obama has promised to raise taxes on businesses -- and to raise taxes a lot on oil companies. I still remember Econ-101 -- and I own a small business. From both theory and practice, I know what businesses do when taxes are raised. Corporations don't "pay" taxes -- they collect taxes from customers and pass them along to the government. When you buy a hot dog from a 7/11, you can see the clerk add the sales tax, but when a corporation's own taxes go up, you don't see it -- its automatic -- but they do the same thing. They build this tax into their product's price. Senator Obama knows this. He knows that even people who earn less than $250,000 will pay higher prices -- those pass-through taxes -- when corporate taxes go up.

No question: this is Tax Lie #4.

There's not a politician alive who hasn't be caught telling some minor truth-bender. However, when it comes to raising taxes, there are no small lies. When George H.W. Bush's "Read my lips -- no new taxes" proved false, he lost the support of his base -- and ultimately lost his re-election bid.

This year, however, we don't have to wait for the proof: Senator Obama has already promised to raise taxes, and we can believe him. However, while making that promise, he's also lied, in at least four significant ways, about who will pay those taxes. If Senator Obama becomes President Obama, when the tax man comes calling, we will all pay the price. And that's the truth.

Tax Rates - and the Obama Increase - $50,000/year Taxable Income

	2000 Tax Tables	2003 Tax Tables	2004 Tax Tables	2010 Tax Tables - (Bush Tax Cuts have Expired)	Increase with Obama Tax Increase*
Taxable Income	$50,000	$50,000	$50,000	$50,000	$50,000
Tax: Single	$10,581	$9,304	$9,231	$10,581	$1,350
Tax: Married - Filing Joint	$8,293	$6,796	$6,781	$8,293	$1,512
Tax: Married - Filing Separate	$11,143	$9,304	$9,231	$11,143	$1,912
Tax: Head of Household	$9,424	$8,189	$8,094	$9,424	$1,330

Tax Rates - and the Obama Increase - $75,000/year Taxable Income

	2000 Tax Tables	2003 Tax Tables	2004 Tax Tables	2010 Tax Tables - (Bush Tax Cuts have Expired)	Increase with Obama Tax Increase*
Taxable Income	$75,000	$75,000	$75,000	$75,000	$75,000
Tax: Single	$17,923	$15,739	$15,620	$17,923	$2,303
Tax: Married - Filing Joint	$15,293	$12,364	$12,219	$15,293	$3,074
Tax: Married - Filing Separate	$18,803	$16,083	$15,972	$18,803	$2,831
Tax: Head of Household	$16,424	$14,439	$14,344	$16,424	$2,080

Tax Rates - and the Obama Increase - $100,000/year Taxable Income

	2000 Tax Tables	2003 Tax Tables	2004 Tax Tables	2010 Tax Tables - (Bush Tax Cuts have Expired)	Increase with Obama Tax Increase*
Taxable Income	$100,000	$100,000	$100,000	$100,000	$100,000
Tax: Single	$25,673	$22,739	$22,620	$25,673	$3,053
Tax: Married - Filing Joint	$22,293	$18,614	$18,469	$22,293	$3,824
Tax: Married - Filing Separate	$27,515	$23,715	$23,504	$27,515	$4,011
Tax: Head of Household	$23,699	$20,741	$20,594	$23,699	$3,015

* When "President" Obama allows President Bush's tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 to expire, this will amount to a de facto tax increase -

http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/10/senator_obamas_four_tax_increa.html

Obama and the Dems want to TAX your 401k!!!

Are you being responsible and trying to plan for your own retirement? Well Obama and the Democrats want to punish you for it. Not only by taking away your 401K tax breaks but they also want to ADD a TAX on top of that. Punish those who are trying to do for themselves so they can spread your wealth around to those to lazy to do for themselves. Don't fall for the line that you will get a tax break under Obama and only those making over $250,000 a year will see their taxes go up....IT IS A LIE! If you work for a living and make more than minimum wage you better plan on paying HIGHER TAXES if Obama is in the White House.

http://www.dakotavoice.com/2008/10/house-democrats-abolish-401k-tax-breaks.html

House Democrats: Abolish 401k Tax Breaks, Create New Tax

What do Democrats do when they see a system or program that isn't working? They throw more money at it, or recreate the same system under another name, or both.

Social Security (or rather, Socialist Security) has been revealed as the glorified government-mandated ponzi scheme that it is, and the Democrats answer is to create another version of it.

Workforce Management says House Democrats are looking at another plan to tighten the goverment's grip on your life, your retirement, and take a bigger chunk of your paycheck.

A plan by Teresa Ghilarducci, professor of economic-policy analysis at the New School for Social Research in New York, contains elements that are being considered. She testified last week before Miller’s Education and Labor Committee on her proposal.

At that hearing, the director of the Congressional Budget Office, Peter Orszag, testified that some $2 trillion in retirement savings has been lost over the past 15 months.

Under Ghilarducci’s plan, all workers would receive a $600 annual inflation-adjusted subsidy from the U.S. government but would be required to invest 5 percent of their pay into a guaranteed retirement account administered by the Social Security Administration. The money in turn would be invested in special government bonds that would pay 3 percent a year, adjusted for inflation.

The current system of providing tax breaks on 401(k) contributions and earnings would be eliminated.

“I want to stop the federal subsidy of 401(k)s,” Ghilarducci said in an interview. “401(k)s can continue to exist, but they won’t have the benefit of the subsidy of the tax break.”

So the Dems want to take away the tax breaks for 401ks...and tax you yet another 5%???

And this idiotic program would be nothing more than a Social Security spinoff. It's just more of the same government-mandated socialist ineptitude.

The definition of "reform" in the Democrat playbook is ludicrous. Keep doing things that don't work. Come up with new ways to do the same things that don't work. Tax more. It'll all be fine.

We need to end that--now.

PASS THIS ON TO ALL YOUR FRIENDS...TELL THEM, NO IF, ANDS OR BUTS...UNDER OBAMA YOU WILL PAY HIGHER TAXES!!!!

It Is NOT Over, DON'T Lose Hope!!!

Forward this, spread the message, don't let the main stream media write off John McCain....this race is NOT OVER!!!

Gallup: Obama 49 percent, McCain 47

A new Gallup Poll of likely voters has Democrat Barack Obama with a 49 percent to 47 percent lead over Arizona Sen. John McCain.

That puts McCain closer in the presidential race than other polls, which have Obama with leads of between 3 and 14 percentage points, according to Real Clear Politics.

McCain has sought in recent days to sharpen his economic message and questioning Obama’s ties to 1960s radical Bill Ayers. The Gallup poll was conducted among 2,100 likely voters.

http://www.bizjournals.com/phoenix/stories/2008/10/13/daily63.html

OBAMA FIRES A 'ROBIN HOOD' WARNING SHOT

Conservatives yesterday ripped Obama after he was caught on video telling an Ohio plumber that he intends to take the profits of small-business owners and "spread the wealth around" to those with lesser incomes.

October 15, 2008 --

WASHINGTON - You won't find it in his campaign ads, but Barack Obama let slip his plans to become a modern-day Robin Hood in the White House, confiscating money from the rich to give to the poor.

The fracas over Obama's tax plan broke out Sunday outside Toledo when Joe Wurzelbacher approached the candidate.

Wurzelbacher said he planned to become the owner of a small plumbing business that will take in more than the $250,000 amount at which Obama plans to begin raising tax rates.

"Your new tax plan is going to tax me more, isn't it?" the blue-collar worker asked.

After Obama responded that it would, Wurzelbacher continued: "I've worked hard . . . I work 10 to 12 hours a day and I'm buying this company and I'm going to continue working that way. I'm getting taxed more and more while fulfilling the American Dream."

"It's not that I want to punish your success," Obama told him. "I want to make sure that everybody who is behind you, that they've got a chance for success, too.

Then, Obama explained his trickle-up theory of economics.

"My attitude is that if the economy's good for folks from the bottom up, it's gonna be good for everybody. I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody."

Critics said Obama let the cat out of the bag.

"It's clear that his main goal is redistribution of wealth, not growth," said Andy Roth with the anti-tax group Club for Growth. "He's perfectly happy to destroy wealth as long as he can redistribute it."

Obama has been meticulous, Roth said, to conceal the "socialistic" nature of his tax plans. "But every once in a while, he lets it slip," he said.

Republican candidate John McCain yesterday charged that Obama's comment was telling.

"This explains how Senator Obama can promise an income-tax cut for millions who aren't even paying income taxes right now," he said in Pennsylvania.

"My plan isn't intended to force small businesses to cut jobs to pay higher taxes so we can 'spread the wealth around.' My plan is intended to create jobs and increase the wealth of all Americans."

http://www.nypost.com/seven/10152008/news/politics/obama_fires_a_robin_hood_warning_shot_133685.htm

Barack Obama's Stealth Socialism

Election '08: Before friendly audiences, Barack Obama speaks passionately about something called "economic justice." He uses the term obliquely, though, speaking in code — socialist code.

During his NAACP speech earlier this month, Sen. Obama repeated the term at least four times. "I've been working my entire adult life to help build an America where economic justice is being served," he said at the group's 99th annual convention in Cincinnati.

And as president, "we'll ensure that economic justice is served," he asserted. "That's what this election is about." Obama never spelled out the meaning of the term, but he didn't have to. His audience knew what he meant, judging from its thumping approval.

It's the rest of the public that remains in the dark, which is why we're launching this special educational series.

"Economic justice" simply means punishing the successful and redistributing their wealth by government fiat. It's a euphemism for socialism.

More HERE

More from the article

Among his proposed "investments":

• "Universal," "guaranteed" health care.

• "Free" college tuition.

• "Universal national service" (a la Havana).

• "Universal 401(k)s" (in which the government would match contributions made by "low- and moderate-income families").

• "Free" job training (even for criminals).

• "Wage insurance" (to supplement dislocated union workers' old income levels).

• "Free" child care and "universal" preschool.

• More subsidized public housing.

• A fatter earned income tax credit for "working poor."

• And even a Global Poverty Act that amounts to a Marshall Plan for the Third World, first and foremost Africa.

His new New Deal also guarantees a "living wage," with a $10 minimum wage indexed to inflation; and "fair trade" and "fair labor practices," with breaks for "patriot employers" who cow-tow to unions, and sticks for "nonpatriot" companies that don't.

With the state of our economy can we really afford Barack Obama's socialist vision for America?

Obama Wants Your Daughter To Register For Draft!

Candidates differ on female draft

Monday, October 13, 2008

By Jerome L. Sherman, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

Even as the U.S. confronts two long wars, neither Sen. John McCain nor Sen. Barack Obama believes the country should take the politically perilous step of reviving the military draft.

But the two presidential candidates disagree on a key foundation of any future draft: Mr. Obama supports a requirement for both men and women to register with the Selective Service, while Mr. McCain doesn't think women should have to register.

Also, Mr. Obama would consider officially opening combat positions to women. Mr. McCain would not.

More HERE

This does nothing more than make the next difficult decision of sending our troops into harms way more of an emotional decision than a fact based one and further undermine the effectiveness of our military.

Not the kind of "CHANGE" we are looking for Barack!

Obama Want To Spread Your Wealth Around To Those Behind You

The Obama Debate Every American Should See

By Terence Jeffrey
Wednesday, October 08, 2008

The most telling debate Barack Obama ever had was not with John McCain but Patrick O'Malley, who served with Obama in the Illinois Senate and engaged Obama in a colloquy every American should read.

The Obama-O'Malley debate was a defining moment for Obama because it dealt with such a fundamental issue: The state's duty to protect the civil rights of the young and disabled.

Some background: Eight years ago, nurse Jill Stanek went public about the "induced-labor abortions" performed at the Illinois hospital where she worked. Often done on Down syndrome babies, the procedure involved medicating the mother to cause premature labor.

Babies who survived this, Stanek testified in the U.S. Congress, were brought to a soiled linen room and left alone to die without care or comforting.

Then-Illinois state Sen. Patrick O'Malley, whom I interviewed this week, contacted the state attorney general's office to see whether existing laws protected a newborn abortion-survivor's rights as a U.S. citizen. He was told they did not.

So, O'Malley -- a lawyer, veteran lawmaker and colleague of Obama on the Illinois Senate Judiciary Committee -- drafted legislation.

In 2001, he introduced three bills. SB1093 said if a doctor performing an abortion believed there was a likelihood the baby would survive, another physician must be present "to assess the child's viability and provide medical care." SB1094 gave the parents, or a state-appointed guardian, the right to sue to protect the child's rights. SB1095 simply said a baby alive after "complete expulsion or extraction from its mother" would be considered a "'person, 'human being,' 'child' and 'individual.'"

The bills dealt exclusively with born children. "This legislation was about preventing conduct that allowed infanticide to take place in the state of Illinois," O'Malley told me.

The Judiciary Committee approved the bills with Obama in opposition. On March 31, 2001, they came up on the Illinois senate floor. Only one member spoke against them: Obama.

"Nobody else said anything," O'Malley recalls. The official transcript validates this.

"Sen. O'Malley," Obama said near the beginning of the discussion, "the testimony during the committee indicated that one of the key concerns was -- is that there was a method of abortion, an induced abortion, where the -- the fetus or child, as -- as some might describe it, is still temporarily alive outside the womb."

Obama made three crucial concessions here: the legislation was about 1) a human being, who was 2) "alive" and 3) "outside the womb."

He also used an odd redundancy: "temporarily alive." Is there another type of human?

"And one of the concerns that came out in the testimony was the fact that they were not being properly cared for during that brief period of time that they were still living," Obama continued.

Here he made another crucial concession: The intention of the legislation was to make sure that 1) a human being, 2) alive and 3) outside the womb was 4) "properly cared for."

"Is that correct?" Obama asked O'Malley.

O'Malley tightened the logical knot. "(T)his bill suggests that appropriate steps be taken to treat that baby as a -- a citizen of the United States and afforded all the rights and protections it deserves under the Constitution of the United States," said O'Malley.

But to these specific temporarily-alive-outside-the-womb-human beings -- to these children who had survived a botched abortion, whose hearts were beating, whose muscles were moving, whose lungs were heaving -- to these specific children of God, Obama was not willing to concede any constitutional rights at all.

To explain his position, Obama came up with yet another term to describe the human being who would be protected by O'Malley's bills. The abortion survivor became a "pre-viable fetus."

By definition, however, a born baby cannot be a "fetus." Merriam-Webster Online defines "fetus" as an "unborn or unhatched vertebrate" or "a developing human from usually two months after conception to birth." Obama had already conceded these human beings were "alive outside the womb."

"No. 1," said Obama, "whenever we define a pre-viable fetus as a person that is protected by the equal protection clause or other elements of the Constitution, what we're really saying is, in fact, that they are persons that are entitled to the kinds of protections that would be provided to a -- a child, a nine-month-old -- child that was delivered to term."

Yes. In other words, a baby born alive at 37 weeks is just as much a human "person" as a baby born alive at 22 weeks.

Obama, however, saw a problem with calling abortion survivors "persons." "I mean, it -- it would essentially bar abortions," said Obama, "because the equal protection clause does not allow somebody to kill a child, and if this is a child, then this would be an antiabortion statute."

For Obama, whether or not a temporarily-alive-outside-the-womb little girl is a "person" entitled to constitutional rights is not determined by her humanity, her age or even her place in space relative to her mother's uterus. It is determined by a whether a doctor has been trying to kill her.

http://townhall.com/Common/PrintPage.aspx?g=516e407a-35ba-49b7-8c53-5f7ed9887f76&t=c

I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character. - MLK Jr.

How do you think he would judge the content of Barack Obama's character?